Modelling of static recrystallization kinetics by coupling crystal plasticity FEM and multiphase field calculations

O. Güvenci, Thomas Henke, Gottfried Laschet, B. Böttger, Markus Apel, Markus� Bambach, G. Hirt

Computer Methods in Material Science · 2013 · 13 citations · 13 references

Concepts

Abstract

Abstract In multi-step hot forming processes, static recrystallization (SRX), which occurs in interpass times, influences the microstructure evolution, the flow stress and the final product properties. Static recrystallization is often simply modeled based on Johnson-Mehl-Avrami-Kolmogorov (JMAK) equations which are linked to the visco-plastic flow behavior of the material. Such semi-empirical models are not able to predict the SRX grain microstructure. In this paper, an approach for the simulation of static recrystallization of austenitic grains is presented which is based on the coupling of a crystal plasticity method with a multiphase field approach. The microstructure is modeled by a representative volume element (RVE) of a homogeneous austenitic grain structure with periodic boundary conditions. The grain microstructure is gener-ated via a Voronoi tessellation. The deformation of the RVE, considering the evolution of grain orientations and disloca-tion density, is calculated using a crystal plasticity finite element (CP-FEM) formulation, whose material parameters have been calibrated using experimental flow curves of the considered 25MoCrS4 steel. The deformed grain structure (disloca-tion density, orientation) is transferred to the FDM grid used in the multiphase field approach by a dedicated interpolation scheme. In the phase field calculation, driving forces for static recrystallization are calculated based on the mean energy per grain and the curvature of the grain boundaries. A simplified nucleation model at the grain level is used to initiate the recrystallization process. Under these assumptions, it is possible to approximate the SRX kinetics obtained from the stress relaxation test, but the grain morphology predicted by the 2d model still differs from experimental findings.

References

13